1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) and Nonparty C.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 11, 191, the non-party company building of the instant apartment house (hereinafter “non-party company”) built the non-party company’s construction of the non-party company’s non-party company’s non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) constructed the non-party company’s non-party company’s apartment house with the first underground floor and 20 household houses with the fourth fourth floor above the ground (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) on the ground of the non-party company’s 792 square meters owned at the time of June 29, 191.

On September 2, 191, the non-party company borrowed KRW 180,000,00 from Non-party E on September 2, 1991, and subsequently, borrowed KRW 738,00,000 from Non-party E on the instant land as collateral and borrowed KRW 738,00,000 from Non-party F.

On October 28, 1991, the non-party company was declared bankrupt in the state of progress to the 2nd floor bend floor of the instant apartment house.

B. On 192, the Plaintiff’s supply and demand for the completion of the instant tenement and the Nonparty Company agreed to pay the Plaintiff the completion of the instant tenement to the Plaintiff KRW 655,000,000, and the construction cost thereof after the completion of the instant tenement.

After that, the construction work on the instant tenement house continues to be built and around April 1992, the structural construction was completed, and the exterior of the building with the fourth floor above the ground level was installed.

C. F and E’s acquisition of the instant tenement house of this case filed a request for auction on the basis of the right to collateral security established on the instant land, and F and E acquired the ownership of each of the instant land at the auction on June 2, 1992.

In addition, around August 14, 1992, F and E changed the name of the owner of the instant tenement to the non-party company and the name of the owner of the instant tenement.

After the dispute between F, E and the Plaintiff and the completion of mediation, F, E and the Plaintiff had a dispute over the approval of use and ownership of the instant apartment house, and F, E and E against the occupants of the instant apartment house.